Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Rosthol, Jan 23, 2020.
How far apart they are might be a factor...
DISH's negotiations were done with interim negotiators when the channels were owned by Disney. The sale to Sinclair was not complete. The interim negotiators were expected to negotiate the best deal on behalf of Disney and Sinclair. I assume that Sinclair's interests were primary ... asking the negotiators not to accept too low of a price that Sinclair would need to honor once they took ownership. But the "let the rights expire, let the channels drop and let the viewers become leverage" mode of negotiation was common for channel providers. "Fox Sports" put up the usual "DISH hates you and is taking away your channels" messaging and expected to force a deal. DISH took a risk and let the contract expire.
YTTV is negotiating in a new environment. Thanks in part to DISH holding firm on not being bullied in to paying much too high a price for RSNs (either a dollar per subscriber price or a required distribution level/number of subscriber price or both). While it was frustrating when YTTV warned that the contract was ending, public opinion immediately was against Sinclair. It was in their best interest not to start the usual "YouTube hates you and is taking away your channels" campaign and let their old deal ride temporarily.
Understand all of that.
Wouldn't it have benefited everyone if Disney says to Dish let's continue with the current contract because we aren't going to own this for very long.
Extend it until Sinclair was going to buy the RSN's.
That was known.
Then according to Dish Disney offered to extend the deal until Spring.
Dish said no.
So for me both sides have failed.
Same terms extended until Sinclair officially took over? I don't recall DISH mentioning an extension offer by Disney.
In any case it would have expired and we would be in the same place we are today - Sinclair wanting too much for their networks.
Any bets that the regional sports networks' business model is irreversibly broken?
I don't know if it's the RSNs, or just sports in general.
The salaries for players in MLB has skyrocketed way too high.
I'm all for the owners of these teams to make as much money as they can. BUT... at some point you reach the point of diminishing return. If these teams are making 400 or 500 million dollars a year (profit... as in, after they pay their players) then they can afford to take less from these TV contracts. If they're not making that much profit, then they just simply can't afford these players. And players are going to have to stop demanding such high salaries. These $30 million per year contracts are absurd.
... and I'm a huge baseball fan.
Disney offered to extend the contract until March 31st at the same terms of the old contract.
Dish said no. Why would they do that?
The only reason would be to charge consumers for the channel and not have to pay the channel.
One Wall Street analyst thinks Dish could realize 500 million dollars by doing the above for a year.
Dish owes the Federal Government 275 million dollars for calling no call phone numbers. Unfair marketing practices.
Do you have a reliable source for your claim (especially the March 31st date)?
The RSN contract expired after an extension on July 26th, 2019.
Sinclair's acquisition was completed August 23rd, 2019.
"Dish claims that Disney is demanding unreasonable rates and want the on a tier that would force subscribers to pay for them whether they watch them or not. Dish also said Disney rejected a short-term extension that called for the new rate to be paid retroactively."
Disney said no.
I don't ever recall March 31st explicitly, but Dish themselves said that the RSN's (at that point, Disney owned them) offered a 9 month extension, that would put it into April and the beginning of MLB season. Here is a link that contains the quote from Dish:
Dish/Sling TV Drops Fox Sports RSNs and MLB Pennant Race Viewing Will Be Affected
Now the nine months of "sports with lower viewership" is coming to an end, the outage has demonstrated the value of the channels. It would be good to see a fair long term deal.
While that could be an outcome, I’m not so sure about it actually coming about. Sinclair has been consistently aggressive in subscription levels and price increases and are as willing to play ‘hard ball’ as is Dish/Sling.
Something has to give and what I think will happen in the longer term is the demise of the RSN business model which is to have the bulk of the subscribers pay for the small minority that actually watch what the RSNs are providing.
NOBODY plays hardball like Dish - PERIOD. End of Discussion. They have demonstrated that they will walk away from a bad deal, no matter what the programming. Example - HBO.
However, I agree with your changing of the RSN model to a "Those that want pay for it" instead of a "everybody pays so a few can enjoy". Look for them to be $5/month/each - if not more. And the major league sports will implode with the drain in money.
$5 each wouldn’t do it. I read an article the other day that indicated that it would take $50+ per actual viewer to keep the revenue stream the RSNs have gotten used to. Does anyone actually think they could attract enough viewers at that price to keep in business? I sure don’t.
DISH's offer to Altitude was to deliver the channels for free, allowing Altitude to set a subscription price per subscriber and passing 100% of that revenue on to Altitude. Not a bad deal as Altitude would not be paying for delivery (as they would if they contracted to start their own delivery service). But RSNs survive based on the non-viewer subscribers. Non RSN sports channels (ESPN FS1/FS2 etc) also survive on the non-viewer subscribers. It would be fair to say most channels would have trouble surviving without non-viewer subscribers.
If I ran a channel I'd certainly be seeking out contracts where my channel was paid for (in part) by non-viewer subscribers.
I am ok with that as long as I get a list of channels and what they charge Dish (for example F/X) that I don't watch so I can opt out of paying for those channels.
Now Dish won't want to do that, but how fair is it that I have to pay for channels that I don't watch.
Just like non-sports fans complain about sports channels.
Why should I pay for AMC, TCM, Disney, etc.
Now you are going to say well sports are more expensive. You are probably right.
So I don't think non-sports fans should subsidize my viewing - I shouldn't subsidize theirs.
50 dollars a month? I wouldn't do it.
You would have
I’m ok with a few tiers. For instance:
Sports Tier - just sports channels with a floating price to pay for the local sports.
Entertainment Tier - Just the channels that don’t do sports as their main programming.
Local - Just the locals
Rerun Tier - stuff all those channels that just do reruns.
Take your pick!
For streaming I’m fine with YouTubeTV without RSNs at the current price. Just enough national sports, plus whatever sports the local broadcast channels do so that the bulk of viewers get the sports they want. Separate out the RSNs and let that small minority pay for the lesser knows and/or cared about sports.
BTW, according to a few reports it seems that only about 10% of subscription viewers actually watch RSNs. That’s not an insignificant number and if the RSNs were priced better wouldn’t be a big deal. But to saddle the 90% with a bill to pay for what the 10% want is just not right.
Whether you like it or not the death knell is warming up on the RSN business model. And that will have a rippling effect on those businesses that depend on it, like team owners, players and possibly some I can’t think of. But not to worry, the sports themselves will do fine, they just may have to quit hogging the trough!
How fair is it that Dish has to pay for channels it doesn't want to carry but the providers insist be included with the primary channels Dish does want to carry? Dish doesn't get to decide what can be offered ala carte in most cases, or even which tiers channels are offered in. Those are negotiated items right along with the fees Dish pays...
Slight correction. Dish doesn’t pay a dime for any of it, you as a consumer of Dish’s product pay every single penny!
I see the if (pick your company) has to pay all the time and it is just incorrect. It is always the consumer that pays. So the question isn’t how much does Dish want to pay for whatever, it is how much to WE want to pay!
Well...if Comcast DOES, in fact, follow thru with dropping ALL FSN regionals in June, they might actually be a close 2nd behind DISH! Plus the fact they have already publicly said they have NO intention of force bundling (Sinclair's) Marquee in any basic tiers...so there's another F-U to Sinclair!
Also you brought up HBO (& MAX)...you probably are aware that Comcast just dropped Starz out of EVERY bundled pkg it had previously been in, & is now ONLY available strictly as an a la carte service; they also cut back on over 1/2 of the Encore/Plex feeds from all their systems as well. (before they came to their now current agreement w/Starz, Comcast was planning on dropping them ENTIRELY from their systems)
Starz Removed from Packages – Xfinity
FWIW, Frontier TV just removed ALL Starz/Encore/Plex ENTIRELY from all their systems as well:
Frontier and Starz | Frontier.com | Frontier
Isn't that a given for every company? The customers always pay the bills in the end. The problem comes in though, when the "vendors", in this case the programming providers, force less popular products on the retailer they don't want in order to get the popular products they do want. Of course the retailer has to pass those costs along to the customers, but they also have to handle the complaints from the customers that don't want to pay for those other products. And those extra costs can affect the retailer's bottom line when they can't competitively justify charging customers the full cost of those unwanted extras.